View Single Post
2021-07-30, 09:10   #10
Alberico Lepore

May 2017
ITALY

10128 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by VBCurtis I don't think you count steps very well. Consider trial factoring. Each prime tried is a single step, and a bunch of them don't work. If you find one that does, the number of steps to find that factor is the number of TOTAL trials, including all the things that didn't work. Your "method" appears to be such a thing- try a bunch of parameter selections until something works, and then claim "it only took 250 steps!". How many parameters did you try against this number that took thousands of steps, or didn't work at all? That's the actual "number of steps" you took to factor it.

yes, I'll try to explain myself better

knowing that the ratio q / p <2 then I will test:

q / p
>

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

and I will execute them at the same time

so it will be the actual time for 10

we consider a 30-digit number with p and q also not prime numbers

188723059539473758658629052963=323456789054341*583456789054343

q/p=1,8038167965499768547404880957269

N=188723059539473758658629052963
,
sqrt(N/(18/10))=a
,
(18/10*a+a-4)/8=x
,
2*x*(x+1)-y*(y-1)/2=(N-3)/8
->
y=64759908643727,........

N=188723059539473758658629052963
,
2*(h)*(h-1)<(N-3)/8+k*(k-1)/2<=2*(h)*(h+1)
,
2*(x)*(x+1)-y*(y-1)/2=(N-3)/8
,
x-(sqrt(32*x+1)+1)/2<h<x+(sqrt(32*x+1)+1)/2
,
k=64759908643727+2399*100000000

I still can't establish the exact size order of the number in red, it would appear from the first tests to be
10 ^ [((digit p) +1) / 2]
, but I'm still studying this number.

In theory, if the above were confirmed,
since k <= y <p with y being the order size of p-1 and the first digit of y is given by the 10 ratios we will have our solution in
10 * {[[ digit p] -1] -1 - [((digit p) +1) / 2]}

I repeat still do not know well the number in red.